American Federation of Government Employees, Council of Prison Locals, Local 1612 (Union) and United States, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri (Agency) (Authority decision, March 2, 2005)

Springfield federal prison medical center and AFGE Local 1612 (FLRA 0-AR-3916): Union exceptions denied

Decision type
Authority decision
Docket
0-AR-3916
Decided
March 2, 2005
Outcome
Upheld
Precedential status
Citable Authority precedent
Checked against source
2026-09-27

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Authority precedent from 2005, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2005
The federal labor-relations law may have been amended, and later Authority or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FLRA release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (flra.gov)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority denies the union's exceptions to an arbitration award. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a)(1), an order involving an arbitral award is generally excluded from judicial review unless it involves an unfair labor practice under 5 U.S.C. § 7116. This decision does not address an unfair labor practice.

Plain-English summary

AFGE Local 1612 challenged an arbitration award involving the federal prison medical center in Springfield, Missouri. The Authority reviewed the record and denied the union's exceptions, finding that the union had not established a ground for setting aside the award under 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a). The brief published decision does not describe the underlying grievance, the arbitrator's remedy, or the union's specific objections. Those details therefore cannot be determined from this release.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: 5 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
  • Outcome: Union exceptions denied; arbitration award left in place.
  • Key point: The release states no factual basis for finding the award contrary to law or the agreement.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v60
p670 ]

60 FLRA No. 130

AMERICAN FEDERATION

OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

COUNCIL OF PRISON LOCALS

LOCAL 1612

(Union)

and

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

MEDICAL CENTER FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS

SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI

(Agency)

0-AR-3916

_____

DECISION

March 2, 2005

_____

Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman, and

Carol Waller Pope and Tony Armendariz, Members

This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Harold Gruenberg filed by the Union under § 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Regulations. The Agency filed an opposition to the Union's exceptions.

Under § 7122(a) of the Statute, an award is deficient if it is contrary to any law, rule, or regulation; or it is deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations. Upon careful consideration of the entire record in this case, and Authority precedent, the Authority concludes that the award is not deficient on the grounds raised in the exceptions and set forth in § 7122(a). See PASS, District No. 1, MEBA/NMU (AFL-CIO), 48 FLRA 764, 768-69 (1993) (award not deficient as contrary to law where excepting party fails to establish that the award is in any manner contrary to the law, rule, or regulation on which the party relies); United States Dep't of Labor (OSHA), 34 FLRA 573, 575 (1990) (award not deficient as failing to draw its essence from the parties' collective bargaining agreement where excepting party fails to establish that the award cannot in any rational way be derived from the agreement; is so unfounded in reason and fact and so unconnected to the wording and purpose of the agreement as to manifest an infidelity to the obligation of the arbitrator; does not represent a plausible interpretation of the agreement; or cannot in any rational way be derived from the agreement or evidences a manifest disregard of the agreement).

Accordingly, the Union's exceptions are denied.

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace